Welcome to OSM, Thanks for adding the name, but I think it only has one "F" as in Scafell Way. If you know where the path is into the park this would be a neat thing to add too. (I added the park a very long time ago, but never visited to check details).

In general such topological changes should not be done in OSM. Ideally you should create a post-processing chain which does the splits as required (large numbers of routing tools already do this for road networks). Not only is the risk of breaking other things as pointed out above; but breaking a stream into many little sections tends to make it much harder for people editing to work with. In general changing OSM data to make it easier to consume can also make it harder to maintain: it is thus usually frowned on.

I'm reverting the wikidata tag on this element node/268811863. You have attached a generic descriptor to a particular item. The wikipedia article link is reasonable because the bridge is described in the article, i.e., it provides a link for information which could be useful for OSM contributors.

Sorry you feel that way. I can make the edit myself and perhaps you can then see what I have done. We certainly dont want to lose the information you have added, just get it in the right place. AFAIR I only asked for the pitch attribute to be removed, the rest of the tags were accurate, just not in the best location.

Hmm, OSM Multipolygons do not have to obey the GIS Standards & I believe explicitly do not. Dont have all refs to hand, but osm.wiki/Talk:Relation:multipolygon#Touching_inner_rings is a start

Yes it can be deleted. It's not a mistake, but a temporary element which I should have removed once the boundary was complete. It is a very rough approximation of a barony boundary, which I used as a guide to find the proper townland boundaries. It may appear in the history of the barony relations. Now deleted.

This is a difficult one: if there are no signs for the Old Colstonian's RFC then it fails the on-the-ground test, and perhaps shouldn't be mapped at all. If there are visible signs (and they are more likely to be a notice board or similar near the changing rooms) then that is the correct location.

The tagging is wrong. There is clearly not a rugby pitch on the service road entering the school grounds. Please remove this tag. You can use club=sport to show this is a sports club, see club=sport.

The club's website describes the cricket pavilion as their 'club house' http://www.ocsport.co.uk/index.php/location. This is probably the location you should use.

Not updated on Open Data Nottingham which is tedious.

On a similar note no-one has surveyed the former Hope Chapel on Highhurst St which I believe is where the synagogue has moved from Shakespeare St.

Hi & welcome to OSM,

Thank for this. I was actually across the road this afternoon & didn't notice. Do you know if the spiritualists have moved or just closed down?

I'll make one change to your edit which is to restore the info about the church but with tags indicating that it is no longer a church. We find such info very useful for two reasons: it helps avoid the problem of people thinking something is missing when it's actually disappeared; second, the info is often of value in its own right.

Best wishes,

Jerry aka SK53

I dont think Costco & the like should not be mapped as supermarkets: cash & carry is the general british term & carries with it the connotations that access is restricted. This was discussed long ago and for whatever reason people did like supermarket. Hey-ho, so now we need supermarket=cash_and_carry.

No need to apologise! Your change was based on ground-truthed data. I think your suggestion is very sensible. Probably whoever runs the housing having different ideas from the council leisure services. I'll have to see if happen to have any photos of the area (I often do a bit of surveying if am near Kings Cross).

Hi,

In this changeset you changed the name of Judd Street Open Space to Bramber Green. Last time I passed (after your edit) it was still signed Judd Street Open Space. What is your source for "Bramber Green".

I was alerted to this by a recent note : note/1253885

Regards,

SK53

Welcome to OpenStreetMap,

Many thanks for adding these missing roads. A very useful contribution.

A couple of very minor points:

* We try & spell out street names in full, so "Avenue" not "Ave", "Crescent" not "Cres". It's easy to shorten long forms but not so easy to guess what a short form should be expanded to.
* The Adult Centre can be tagged with amenity=social_facility which is very useful as it covers a whole range of things which might otherwise be a bit awkward to tag. You probably dont want the building tag on the whole area (you can add the building separately) as it overlaps with the service road.

I can make these changes if you like, but you may well prefer to do it yourself. I'm in your hands.

Compliments of the season,

Jerry (SK53)

Adding a link to the relevant way makes it a bit easier to check. Yes it should be swing on Old Goole Bridge. As the edit was to stop routers avoiding these bridges: it worked as I intended, even if I didnt quite use the right tag

probably

Just looking through towns & spotting a fair number of anomalies. For instance I'm not sure that (local to this one) New Brighton is anything more than a suburb of Wallasey (although I've left it as is before now).

Unfortunately this deleted the node for Wallasey entirely.

Unfortunately you didnt check the Wikidata tag you added in this changeset. It is for a different Alford thousands of km away in Florida. I know this was a long time ago, but wikidata tags on their own dont tend to get the 'eyeball' sense checking that a wikipedia tag would have done.

Although the error does appear on https://osmlab.github.io/wikidata-osm/ many of the discrepancies reported there with a 1000km distance filter are trivial and under 1km (e.g., Pittodrie Stadium).

No problem; it's relatively simple, provided: a) one has done it before; b) have the relevant setup in JOSM. If I have josm open on the desktop I can do these quickly when the need arises (as when idly browsing changeset comments ;-)).

I've added these back and also restored the building for 1318 Woodville Court. If the latter has gone feel free to delete, but it does appear in several imagery layers. See changeset/54680347.

Hope this helps fix any problems.